Search

After an unprecedented 6 hours of oral arguments, the Supreme Court wrapped up their consideration of Obamacare yesterday. The Court’s five conservatives asked probing questions and seemed very skeptical of the individual mandate throughout the week. After three days, it seems that President Obama’s signature achievement might be in jeopardy of a partisan ruling by the Roberts Court and if they do strike it down then what happens?

No one really knows. First off, important provisions from Obamacare are already in effect. Adults and children with pre-existing conditions cannot be denied coverage. If the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law would insurance companies just go back to denying coverage to those individuals?

Young people can now stay on their parent’s insurance until the age of 26. Shout out to my sister who is one of the 2.5 million young people who have benefited from this specific provision. Do insurance companies just take that coverage away if the Court strikes down the law?

No matter what happens the media will likely be focused on the political impact. What will this mean for the president’s poll numbers? Will this help or hurt his chances for re-election? I think that the real question should be what are we going to do if this law is struck down? Go back to the way it was before? That seems pretty sucktastic to me.

Obamacare isn’t just the signature achievement of President Obama’s administration, it’s the signature achievement of everyone who supported his election. We all worked very hard for this law whether it be through writing, voting, or calling our congressional representatives during the health care debate and voting process.

For unelected judges to simply throw out an entire law like this would seriously undermine the credibility of the Supreme Court but perhaps that doesn’t matter to them.

A federal judge ruled against the Obama administration’s current system of family detention late Friday, saying that it violated minimum requirements forconditions for children held in federal immigration custody, particularly provisions requiring that minors be placed in nonsecure facilities run by agencies licensed for child care.

That secure private prison complexes are inherently unable to be child-appropriate settings should really come as a surprise to no one.

The long overdue decision affirms what Cristina Parker at Grassroots Leadership points out thousands of immigration advocates across the country have been saying for over a year now: that existing federal requirements regarding the treatment of unaccompanied minorsapprehended at the border (which require such basic protections as a policy favoring quick release, proper physical care and maintenance, and legal services) also protect children caught with their parents. ...

A federal judge ruled against the Obama administration’s current system of family detention late Friday, saying that it violated minimum requirements forconditions for children held in federal immigration custody, particularly provisions requiring that minors be placed in nonsecure facilities ...

The Supreme Court acted Monday to keep Texas’ 19 abortion clinics open, amid a legal fight that threatens to close more than half of them.

The justices voted 5-4 to grant an emergency appeal from the clinics after a federal appeals court upheld new clinic regulations and refused to keep them on hold while the clinics appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court order will remain in effect at least until the court decides whether to hear the clinics’ appeal of the lower court ruling, not before the fall.